Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bireswar Podder & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 23 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 1443 of 2022
Bireswar Podder & Ors.
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Ms. Jagriti Bhattacharya.
For the State : Ms. Sreyashi Biswas,
Ms. Puspita Saha.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Prabir Adhya,
Ms. Madhumanti Chakraborty.
Hearing concluded on : 10.12.2024
Judgment on : 23.12.2024
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for
quashing of proceeding being G.R. case No. 172/22 arising out of
Nabadwip Police Station Case No. 216 of 2020 dated 22.06.2020 under
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Charge Sheet being No.
288/20 dated 30.07.2020, submitted therein under Section 498A/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Nabadwip.
2
2. The petitioners state that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the
opposite party No. 2 and the petitioner no. 2 and 3 are brother-in-law
and father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2/complainant herein.
3. The opposite party no. 2/complainant initiated the present case alleging
therein as follows :-
“It is stated that around 1 year and five months prior of the
date of registration of the marriage, the opposite party no. 2
got married with the petitioner no. 1 as per Hindu rites and
customs. It is alleged that as per demand of the petitioner no.
1 and his family the father of the Opposite Party No. 2 gave
cash of Rs. 40,000/- (Forth Thousand), 6 (six ) vori gold
ornaments and other things. It is alleged that after one month
of the said marriage the victim was subjected to mental and
physical torture by the petitioners. She was forced to leave
her matrimonial home seven months before the date of
registering the instant complainant. Thereafter on
22.06.2020, she was informed by the petitioner no. 1 to come
to her matrimonial home. It is alleged that on 22.06.2020
when the opposite party no. 2 went to her matrimonial home,
she was allegedly threatened and physically assaulted.
And, thus she registered the instant complaint.”
4. The State has placed the case diary.
5. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, lays down:-
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.–Whoever, being
the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pun-
ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purpose of this section,
“cruelty” means–
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
3health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.
Ingredients of offence.– The essential ingredients
of the offence under Section 498A are as follows:-
(1) A woman was married;
(2) She was subjected to cruelty;
(3) Such cruelty consisted in —
(i) Any lawful conduct as was likely to drive
such woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to her life, limb or health
whether mental or physical.
(ii) Harm to such woman with a view to
coercing her to meet unlawful demand for
property or valuable security or on account of
failure of such woman or any of her relations to
meet the lawful demand.
(iii) The woman was subjected to such cruelty
by her husband or any relation of her husband.”
6. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs State of Telangana &
Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. ………… of 2024 (arising out of
SLP (Criminal) No. 16239 of 2024, decided on December 10,
2024, the Supreme Court held:-
“15. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC
when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty,
which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to
three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section
498A of the IPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose of Section
498A of the IPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in
clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a) of the
Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that “cruelty”
means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely
4
to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of
clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC,
states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a
nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further,
clause (b) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC
states that cruelty would also include harassment of the
woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on account of failure by
her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
16. Further, Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty
for giving or taking dowry. It states that any person who
engages in giving, taking, or abetting the exchange of dowry,
shall face a punishment of imprisonment for a minimum of
five years and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees
or the value of the dowry, whichever is greater. Section 4 of
the Dowry Act talks of penalty for demanding dowry. It
states that any person demanding dowry directly or
indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardians of
a bride or bridegroom shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which
may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to
ten thousand rupees.
18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations
made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other
than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that
appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2
has not provided any specific details or described any
particular instance of harassment. She has also not
mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the
alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks
concrete and precise allegations.
25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a
criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without
specific allegations indicating their active involvement should
be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate
all the members of the husband’s family when domestic
disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised
and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence
or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for
criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such
cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal
process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent
family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6,
5
who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have
been living in different cities and have not resided in the
matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2
herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process
of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against
each of them.
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an
amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a
woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift
intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there
have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the
country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within
the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a
growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of
the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against
the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and
generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not
scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an
encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife
and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to
invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his
family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable
demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and
again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his
family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against
them.
29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who
has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated
under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and
forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any
criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid
observations but we should not encourage a case like as in
the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for
dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband
of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section
498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion
of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a
woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home
primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes
it is misused as in the present case.
30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V.
Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows:
6
“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in
recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in
which elders of the family are also involved with the result
that those who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being
arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many
other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a
court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and
in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing
their “cases” in different courts.”
31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to
be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realties into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives
who had been living in different cities and never visited or
rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would
have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the
complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care
and circumspection.
32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR
No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with
ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against
appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2
to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within
category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan
Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in
not exercising the powers available to it under Section
482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s
process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the
appellants.”
7. The complaint has been registered seven months after leaving her
matrimonial home.
7
8. The allegations are general in nature and the ingredients required to
make out a prima facie case for the offences alleged is clearly not made
out.
9. CRR 1443 of 2022 is allowed.
10. The entire proceeding being G.R. case No. 172/22 arising out of
Nabadwip Police Station Case No. 216 of 2020 dated 22.06.2020 under
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Charge Sheet being No.
288/20 dated 30.07.2020, submitted therein under Section 498A/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Nabadwip, is hereby quashed.
11. All connected application, if any, stands disposed of.
12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
13. Let a copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned trial court at once.
14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties expeditiously after complying with all requisite
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)